02-03-2018, 07:12 PM
On the contrary, I would study the (good) paintings of the subject first, rather than photos if i wanted to learn more. Reason: you are also going to learn the abstraction/simplification process used by the artist in depicting whatever it is as well as the subject matter itself. Think of it as if they've already done the actual hard work of being the artist for you.These can then be directly adapted into your painting right away if desired.
If you study from a photo I suggest you actively think about this abstraction and simplification process as you work, since you are the one needing to do it all. That's really what a study that doesn't just become a copy is...you learning to observe, and then translate the observation in your own way.
i learned very late that, photo studies were way too easy to copy and produce accurate copies and yet learn very little from them if you aren't more aware of how you conduct them. They have their place ofc, just be purposeful in how you use them.
And studying from real life is much better than photos. The thing you are observing is not a fixed thing, where all the pixels are the same colour in the same place in the same spot. The learning you get from observing live changing conditions will be much more beneficial than any photo, because it's just that much more challenging, and abstraction/simplification is more needed.
Of course it depends on the aim of the study..some things rote copying/observation isn't necessarily a bad thing...like bargue plates where accuracy in observation is the goal, but even then, some form of mental abstraction system is probably happening to help judge proportions, placements etc
If you study from a photo I suggest you actively think about this abstraction and simplification process as you work, since you are the one needing to do it all. That's really what a study that doesn't just become a copy is...you learning to observe, and then translate the observation in your own way.
i learned very late that, photo studies were way too easy to copy and produce accurate copies and yet learn very little from them if you aren't more aware of how you conduct them. They have their place ofc, just be purposeful in how you use them.
And studying from real life is much better than photos. The thing you are observing is not a fixed thing, where all the pixels are the same colour in the same place in the same spot. The learning you get from observing live changing conditions will be much more beneficial than any photo, because it's just that much more challenging, and abstraction/simplification is more needed.
Of course it depends on the aim of the study..some things rote copying/observation isn't necessarily a bad thing...like bargue plates where accuracy in observation is the goal, but even then, some form of mental abstraction system is probably happening to help judge proportions, placements etc